If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Before you read another word about Kevin Ware's injury or Louisville's win over Duke, I urge you to first read the take that Bob Valvano has posted on Facebook. It's as heartfelt and poignant as anything I've seen in a long while.

"I have just been more than a little suspect of all the trades since the Willy (Scott Williamson) cash grab. That one left such a bad taste in my mouth that even a 1985 Dom Pťrignon couldn't cleanse it." -- Creek14

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by 1940757690

Also had 5 years at FSU and another 2 or 3 in the NBA (Bucks and Celts).

The NBA experience is adequate, the OMFGCU experience is not really. He had 2 seasons as head coach, Maybe (5 total?) and improved his team from 7th(year before he was hired) to 6th to 2nd in the conference.
This is a flashy hire that reeks of the Mets signing a player to take attention away from the Yankees.

That said, I'm not sure the UCLA faithful would be ecstatic 10 days ago if you told them that Howland's replacement would be Steve Alford. UCLA's fault was in believing that even though Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart had shown no inclination to move to "bigger and better" jobs in the past, that surely one of them would come to Westwood. Once they were turned down by those two, they appeared to have no plan for who to turn to next and had to make a hire they knew would say yes.

Which brings me to Minnesota. In both the most recent football and basketball coaching searches, Minnesota has been turned down more often than a teenage Hoosier Red looking for dates. (And believe me, That. Is. Saying. Something.) It's one thing for UCLA to presume that a coach who hadn't moved for other jobs would move to LA, but Minnesota? Of course they started with the two golden boys, and after being turned down by Stevens and Smart, they've now been turned down by guys with less impressive resumes/current jobs. Hell at this point, I think Dave Bliss turned them down from prison.

When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
---Joe Posnanski

Likes:

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

So what about them early in the year made them look unbeatable if you think they are so awful?

I don't think they're awful, but I think they were overrated by playing weak competition. I think they would have been 5th in the Big 10. They were a good college team (with no NBA players in the starting lineup), but they played a team that has 4 guys that will eventually be 1st round draft picks. Florida is not a great offensive team. They didn't have anybody that they could rely on to score points. In the regular season their up tempo style got them a lot of points because they were more athletic and could get easy points off their defense or in transition. Michigan cut that off, and Florida's half court offense was helpless.

I think Donovan did a great job with this team. He knew where they were weak and figured out a way to compensate for that. He could mask those deficiencies playing in a weak SEC because Florida was stronger and quicker than other teams. But Michigan was a bad matchup for them.

Likes:

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Hell at this point, I think Dave Bliss turned them down from prison.

"I have just been more than a little suspect of all the trades since the Willy (Scott Williamson) cash grab. That one left such a bad taste in my mouth that even a 1985 Dom Pťrignon couldn't cleanse it." -- Creek14

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Two myths in this thread methinks.

First, Michigan wasn't a "bad matchup" for Florida...they were much better than FL on game day in nearly every respect.

And, on the Enfield experience level being insufficient or enough for the Bruins job...there are tons of examples of less-experienced coaches having great success at higher levels in all sports (i.e., Jon Gruden in Tampa). Similarly, there are tons of examples of very experienced coaches failing miserably at higher levels (anyone remember Steve Spurrier in DC?). Enfield has a flashy profile good for LA. His resume is reasonable if not compelling. Give the guy a chance. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see UCLA crack at least the Sweet 16 within 2-3 years.

Likes:

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by Hillsdale87

I don't think they're awful, but I think they were overrated by playing weak competition. .

Marquette and Wisconsin? Totally destroyed both. I saw most Marquette games and that Florida team I saw in November was the best team they played all year except maybe for Louisville. Most Wisconsin fans I've talked to say the same thing. (Same Wisconsin team that beat Michigan twice). Something happened to Florida. .

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by 1940757690

Two myths in this thread methinks.

First, Michigan wasn't a "bad matchup" for Florida...they were much better than FL on game day in nearly every respect.

And, on the Enfield experience level being insufficient or enough for the Bruins job...there are tons of examples of less-experienced coaches having great success at higher levels in all sports (i.e., Jon Gruden in Tampa). Similarly, there are tons of examples of very experienced coaches failing miserably at higher levels (anyone remember Steve Spurrier in DC?). Enfield has a flashy profile good for LA. His resume is reasonable if not compelling. Give the guy a chance. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see UCLA crack at least the Sweet 16 within 2-3 years.

I think you mean USC cracking the Sweet 16 since they hired him.

Certainly there are examples of less experienced coaches cashing in on their big break, but the weight of evidence is generally in favor of coaches with a better track record being successful. Especially in College basketball which can be a different animal entirely from the NFL. However, my guess is most coaching changes fail, so it's all relevant.

When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
---Joe Posnanski

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

I think you mean USC cracking the Sweet 16 since they hired him.

Certainly there are examples of less experienced coaches cashing in on their big break, but the weight of evidence is generally in favor of coaches with a better track record being successful. Especially in College basketball which can be a different animal entirely from the NFL. However, my guess is most coaching changes fail, so it's all relevant.

Yep--switched UCLA/Bruins in rather than USC/Trojans--both jobs filled in the same week. I wonder if your "weigh of evidence" really is true? It might be but not sure. Of course, much depends on the definitions of success and failure.

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by Mutaman

Marquette and Wisconsin? Totally destroyed both. I saw most Marquette games and that Florida team I saw in November was the best team they played all year except maybe for Louisville. Most Wisconsin fans I've talked to say the same thing. (Same Wisconsin team that beat Michigan twice). Something happened to Florida. .

Neither of those teams has any NBA players. Marquette was overrated IMO as well. They were essentially Florida with far worse shooters. They play swarming defense, but they're very offensively challenged. In the Big East, where most teams outside of Louisville struggle to score, that was fine. Also, Florida is about the worst matchup possible for Wisconsin. They can effectively handle teams that like to push the pace on offense by slowing them down. But Florida pushes the pace on defense, and Wisconsin doesn't have the athletes or ball handlers to deal with the pressure that Florida brings. I would also add that both Marquette and Wisconsin were far better at the end of the year than they were at the beginning.

Again, I'm not saying that I don't think Florida was good, but just that they had some serious deficiencies that had gone unnoticed because of their competition. The only other team they played with a similar level of athletes was Arizona, and they lost in a close game. Michigan was at a similar level athletically, but with more skill. I would have taken everybody on Michigan's starting 5 over their complement for Florida.

Re: March Madness 2013 discussion

Originally Posted by 1940757690

Yep--switched UCLA/Bruins in rather than USC/Trojans--both jobs filled in the same week. I wonder if your "weigh of evidence" really is true? It might be but not sure. Of course, much depends on the definitions of success and failure.

The chart shows coaches who switched jobs after their first NCAA win. Some hits and misses for sure, but it looks like the majority of the misses were guys going from a small school into a BCS job.
The success stories for the most part were guys who switched from a small school to a "mid-major" like Matta at Xavier or Marshall at Wichita State.

Of course there are a number of reasons I can think this would be the case. The guys going to a mid major school were likely replacing another successful coach who left for a big time program after experiencing success, whereas the guys going to a BCS program were usually going to dumpster fires that even great coaches may not have overcome.

When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
---Joe Posnanski

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball